2758A
Karl Marx famously argued that the British Industrial Revolution grew out
of the exploitation of the working class. Was he right?
2463
The industrial revolution (circa 1750- 1850) originated in Britain and was
characterised by substantial, sustained economic growth. It was the first time
in history the Malthusian trap was overcome, allowing population and
economic growth to accompany one another in their expansions. Technological
development and subsequent implementation in society provide the only
explanation for this persistent economic growth, as supported by the Solow
Swann model. This is because capital accumulation which causes short-term
economic growth, eventually runs into diminishing returns, preventing
sustained, long-term economic growth and improvements in prosperity to take
place. Therefore, in verifying the integrity of Karl Marx’s argument for the
cause of the industrial revolution, initially identifying how the exploitation of
the working class leads to technological advancements in society is vital. Karl
Marx argues that individuals with no ownership of the factors of production,
known as the working class, were exploited by those that did in order to onset
the industrial revolution. The ‘bourgeoisie’, those in charge of the factors of
production in society, were then able to generate substantial profits that could
be re-invested into the technologies circulating the market, to help sustain the
continuation of the industrial revolution. However, this technological
implementation is dependent on the presence of a ‘high-wage society’, for
owners to have some incentive to implement new expensive technologies in
their production methods. Therefore, the argument, synthesised by Allen, that
a high-wage economy was essential for the onset of the industrial revolution is
of important consideration. Although, the extension of exploited individuals in
Karl Marx’s argument, to not just those in Britain but also those in British
colonies, such as the slaves in North America, more conclusively supports the
emergence of the industrial revolution. This is because the triangular trade for
which slaves were an essential part of, enabled luxury, exotic goods to be
imported to Britain, and aid an ‘industrious revolution.’ (Vries, 2008) Although
the exploitation of working-class individuals was significant, it was arguably not
sufficient in onsetting the industrial revolution. Instead, it was a consequence
rather than a cause of the industrial revolution that along with other factors,
helped sustain its presence for the 100 years it spanned.
The working class, which Marx establishes as the exploited individuals amidst
the industrial revolution, arose from the enclosure acts passed in parliament
that privatised communal land. As a result, commoners could not use this land
for foraging, hunting and subsequently sustaining their livelihoods, which
relied significantly on the gains from these communal lands. This was
particularly significant for women and children who ‘were the primary
exploiters of common rights,’ (Humphries, 1990) and as Humphries identifies,
families became more vulnerable to exploitation due to their now increased
reliance on the small wages they earned as a consequence. Being left with no
means of production, many families migrated to urban cities, where work
opportunities were more abundant. However, with little bargaining power and
extreme desperation, the working class were easily exploited, as suggested by
the 23% increase in working hours a day to 10.5/11 hours during 1750-1800.
(Voth, 2001 ) Although, it is important to acknowledge that the vulnerability of
the working class does not directly imply that these individuals were exploited.
Instead, the longer, harder hours of work they engaged in may have been a
voluntary contribution to increase their consumption possibilities which De
Vries acknowledges as the emergence of an ‘industrious revolution.’ (Vries,
2008) Regardless, the working class became, ‘merely the motive power of an
implement-machine.’ (Marx, Capital: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist
Production, London 1887, 1967) Working-class individuals were ultimately
essential in the operation of machineries, such as the steam engine and
plough, which induced productivity improvements and sustained the industrial
revolution. Moreover, they were important in showcasing that technology
could be appropriately used once implemented, encouraging and reassuring
business owners about the further mechanisation of industrious jobs.
However, the automation of jobs is, more importantly dependent on high
wages for labour, a necessary condition, that Allen believes is unique to Britain
and a causal factor in both onsetting and sustaining the industrial revolution.
This is because if wages are high then technological innovation and subsequent
implementation are encouraged to act as a substitute for the expensive labour
to make production more profitable, which is the main motive for firms. (Allen,
2009) Therefore, although the supposed exploitation of working-class
individuals was somewhat influential in supporting the industrial revolution, it
was not a sufficient factor in aiding technological innovation or
implementation to respectively either onset or sustain the continued presence
of the industrial revolution.
Arguably the British industrial revolution grew not from the exploitation of the
working class, but rather from the high labour cost that meant, ‘British
Workers were more prosperous than their counterparts,’ (Allen, 2009) which is
exemplified by the ‘widespread consumption of expensive and highly refined
foods like white bread, meat, dairy products and beer,’ (Allen, 2009) in Britain.
With the presence of high labour costs, incentives for firms to increase returns
by implementing ‘labour-saving technological’ changes were established,
which aided the movement of inventions from the market to the workplace.
The ability for high wages to incentivise greater technological advancements
that generate substantial profits enabled firms to pay higher wages, in turn
creating additional productivity improvements. This created a virtuous cycle
that mutually reinforced high wages and high productivity aiding substantial
economic growth, like that seen during the industrial revolution. This virtuous
cycle was also reinforced by an alternative route where the endogeneity of
higher wages yielded higher levels of education that supported the
development of a more intelligent and scientific society. (Allen, 2009) Through
a revolution in ideas, which Mokyr refers to as ‘the enlightenment’ (Mokyr,
2009), involvement in business, invention and economic activities that
improved social standing in society, were seen as respectable, encouraging
increased participation in the market, further aiding the technological
advancements responsible for the industrial revolution. Unlike Marx’s
explanation for the industrial revolution which relied on the direct channel of
profit creation through the exploitation of working-class individuals to
encourage technological implementation, Allen’s argument of a high wage
economy evidently operates through multiple channels. These include
education, ideas, as well as profit creation, that in turn reinforce one another,
but also more conclusively cause rather than encourage increased automation.
However, data on these proposed high wages in Britain are limited, failing to
ensure that high wages were present throughout the entirety of Britain and
not just polarised in particular favourable geographic locations, like port cities
and London. This issue with the integrity of the evidence supporting Allen’s
argument has been pointed out by many other economic historians like Judy
Stephenson who uses new evidence from construction sites to argue that
wages for workers in Britain were low on the eve of the industrial revolution.
Although Stephenson finds that ‘the actual wage in London construction was
significantly below the levels reported in the series that have been used by
Allen,’ this conclusion is synthesised just based on data restricted to
Construction in London. Additionally, Stephenson fails to consider whether
these newly revised wages were still high in comparison to the rest of the
world, which Allen points outs to conclude her adjustments ‘would have no
significant implications,’ (Stephenson, 2018) as British wages were still higher
than anywhere else in the world after these revisions. Unlike Marx’s theory for
the cause of the industrial revolution, Allen’s argument is more robust in the
sense that it provides a reasonable explanation as to why the industrial
revolution was onset but also why it was unique to Britain, which the industrial
revolution initially was. Identifying whether individuals were exploited is
difficult as the data is ambiguous, supporting both the idea of individuals being
exploited but also that individuals chose to work harder and longer in response
to the expanding consumer market. Whereas Allen’s argument identifying
whether real wages were high is contested by economic historians that believe
there is insufficient evidence to make this claim, but nevertheless supportive of
the fact that high wages were present. Therefore, although this does not
disprove Marx’s theory about the industrial revolution it suggests that the
exploitation of individuals was less important in aiding the onset of the
industrial revolution than high wages for labour were.
However, if the definition of exploited individuals during the industrial
revolution is extended to not just those present in the domestic economy, but
also the slaves in British colonies that arguably were more significant in the
onset of the industrial revolution, then this significantly improves Marx’s
argument. There is no ambiguity about the exploitation of slaves, whose
human freedoms were completely abolished once they were sold. They were
forced into the production of goods like, cotton and tobacco, working ‘shifts of
up to 18 hours a day’ (BBC , 2022). They were essential in the production of
these raw materials that were imported to Britain and supported the changing
nature of exports. Increased production of finished goods was being
undertaken due to the availability of abundant raw materials from the
Americas, requiring production itself to become much more centralised. There
was a movement away from household production to operating in factories,
where labour could be divided to enable increased efficiency through
specialisation and support the export-led growth of this period. Overall exports
increased from £1,141,000 in 1699/1701-1772/74, to £2,614,000 in 1772/741804/06 (Inokori, 2002), as an intricate, triangular network of trade developed
across the Atlantic Ocean. British manufactures were sold in Africa in exchange
for slaves that were sold to planters in the Americas. The slaves produced
‘plantation crops – sugar, cotton, indigo, cocoa,’ (Williams, 1994) that were
sold also in exchange for British manufactures. This gave a ‘triple stimulus to
the British economy,’ (Williams, 1994) increasing capital accumulation that
could be re-invested into technological improvements for production in order
to maintain and expand Britain’s trading position. This is supported by Inokori’s
own belief that the ability to export sustains growth, as ‘increases in overseas
sales accounted for more than half of the increments in British industrial
output between 1700 and 1760, and between 1780 and 1800, respectively.’
(Inokori, 2002) This is because as trade becomes more prominent, incentives
to ease and improve the processes required to produce the goods for
exportation was desirable, particularly given the substantial profits that could
be made. Consequently, technological implementation occurred. Inokori’s view
on the importance of overseas resources in increasing export sales that
encouraged technological change is complementary with Pomeranz’s theory
about the onset of the industrial revolution. Pomeranz emphasises how the
absence of overseas resources would have forced Britain ‘back onto a path of
much more labour-intensive growth,’ (Pomeranz, 2000) making the slaves,
who were responsible in producing resources for international trade,
extremely significant. However, despite this William believes that while slavery
was an initial driver it became less critical as the British Industrial revolution
wore on and technology advanced. (Williams, 1994) However, Marx himself
acknowledges that ‘world trade is the necessary condition for large-scale
machine industry.’ (Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy, 1846) In particular, it is
the slaves, exploited black individuals, that were essential for strengthening
Britain’s trade position, and as Marx points out, ‘Without slavery there would
be no cotton, without cotton, there would be no modern industry.’ (Marx, The
Poverty of Philosophy, 1846) Although this is not Marx’s main belief for why
the industrial revolution was caused, it can be incorporated within his thesis to
strengthen his argument. This is partially because there is no doubt as to
whether slaves were exploited like there is about working-class individuals, but
more importantly because it more definitely results in the technological
advancements that aided the industrial revolution. This is because, in addition
to the technological advancements encouraged by the supply-sided economic
growth from international trade that slaves were responsible for, technological
improvements also arose from demand-side factors made possible by slavery.
With the substantial profits generated from the triangular trade system, much
more luxury foods and goods were being imported to Britain. As individuals
became increasingly aware of these new delicacies that were now being
introduced to British markets, they subsequently chose to work longer and
harder so they too could consume these products, aiding an ‘industrious
revolution.’ (Vries, 2008) This is significant because when individuals are
incentivised to work harder and longer, they become more creative in the
manner they complete their required jobs to make it more manageable, in due
course aiding improvements in productive efficiency through incremental
technological developments required for their jobs. Although the extent to
which regular working-class individuals were able to influence the creation of
macro-inventions that onset the industrial revolution was minimal, it still had a
small, supportive role in the industrial revolution by causing some productivity
improvements to existing industrious jobs. As a result, this showcases that
Marx’s thesis focuses on the exploitation of the wrong group of people, who
may have not even in fact been exploited, but also were not as influential in
onsetting and supporting the industrial revolution as slaves were.
Overall, Marx was to some degree incorrect about the fact that the industrial
revolution grew out of the exploitation of working-class individuals. Firstly,
there is limited evidence to support the fact that individuals were being
exploited and not voluntarily choosing to increase their participation in
markets. Moreover, even with individuals being exploited, this is neither a
necessary nor sufficient factor in causing technological advancements that
caused the industrial revolution. Although it was to some extent influential as
it ensured that machineries were operated once in use, this did not provide a
strong incentive for firms to automate. Instead alongside this, wages for labour
must have been high in order to have ensured that firms would implement
labour substituting technological changes that could cause sustained economic
growth. Consequently, Allen’s theory as to why the industrial revolution was
caused and sustained is more robust than that proposed by Marx. However,
extending Marx’s argument to incorporate slaves, who were without doubt
significantly exploited provides a more reasonable explanation for the cause
and continuation of the industrial revolution. Slaves were integral in the
expanding international trade of this period, that as Inokori points out was
significant in the technological developments that subsequently followed.
Therefore, Marx was on the right tracks when he was considering the
exploitation of individuals, just incorrect in the group of people he focused on,
the working class in the domestic economy. However, in regard to Allen’s high
wage theory, the presence of slavery is still secondary in causing the industrial
revolution as although this factor is sufficient it is not necessary in comparison
to a high wage economy, which is both these conditions. Therefore, although
the exploitation of individuals was influential in the industrial revolution and in
particular in regard to slaves, high wages for labour is arguably the crucial
condition that caused as well as sustained the industrial revolution.
Bibliography
Allen, R. (2009). The British Industrial Revolution in global perspective . New
York : Cambridge University Press .
BBC . (2022, May 2). The captives' experience and resistance to enslavement.
Retrieved from BBC Bitesize :
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z732pv4/revision/3
Humphries, J. (1990). Enclosures, Common rights, and women: The
Proletarianization of families in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth
centuries . The Journal of Economic History , 17-42.
Inokori, J. E. (2002). Africans and the industrial revolution in England .
Cambridge : Cambridge University press.
Marx, K. (1846). The Poverty of Philosophy. New York: International publishers .
Marx, K. (1967). Capital: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production, London
1887. New York : International Publishers .
Mokyr, J. (2009, April 29). The enlightened economy . Yale : Yale university
press . Retrieved from UK Parliament: https://www.parliament.uk/
Pomeranz, K. (2000). The great divergance . Princton : Princton university
press.
Stephenson, J. (2018). Real Wages? Contractors, workers, and pay in London
building trades, 1650-1800. The Economic History Review , 106-132.
Voth, H.-J. (2001 ). The longest years: New estimates of labor input in England,
1760-1830. Journal of Economic history 61, 1065-1082.
Vries, J. D. (2008). The industrious revolution . Cambridge : Cambridge
university press .
Williams, E. (1994). Capitalism and Slavery . Chicago : University of North
Carolina Press .